So I've found that I really love the hotkey to unequip your helmet. According to some posts i've found it is not stored in the inventory since its meant to hang by your waist in the future. I love that and can't wait for that to happen. This has lead me to walk around alot more in armor and just increase my immersiveness in the verse. I know that at some point we are supposed to be able to store our armors in lockers on the larger ships but there are still alot of ships that has walkable space but no lockers (titan, cutlass, and many more.)
I would love if they added a shortcut like with the helmet to uneqip and grab your backpack. Since the weapons are attached to the pack they would come off as well. I've heard that heavy armor and backpacks wont fit in the chair in the future so you'll have to remove them before sitting down. This hotkey would let players prepare loadouts and certain packs for various missions and just quickly remove them and store them at a convenient place without breaking immersion by staring at a menue.
Now this is just a stray thought but I would actually love this feature. Anyone agree or disagree? Also wouldn't mind a real animation of the player opening the backpack instead of the menue but that's just me and thats enough of my backpack related thoughts. Have a nice weekend everyone Fly safe during invictus and be nice to the new folks that will try the game.

Introduction
Muslims believe the Quran, the holy book of Islam itself is not just a religious book for guidance but also the literal word of god i.e. Allah itself. In everyday conversations, you will hear Muslims call it Kalamullah (Word of God), not in the Christian sense where the Word is Jesus and God but actual sayings, sentences, and words uttered by god himself and compiled into a single book by human hands. While Muslims are proud of their holy book being the literal words of god sent down to all of mankind, there are a few problems with that mainly concerning Islam's doctrinal theology and its core beliefs.
Disclaimer and Notes
Now, before I start, a disclaimer. The issue of the Quran being god's word or not has been one of the most pretentious and divided issues in the Muslim community. Because of this issue, multiple sects (considered deviant and heretical today) popped up in the early years of Islam's history leading to multiple debates, condemnations, and even inquisitions for those that were against the majority-held view in history. So to make it easy considering Islam has tons of historical sects, all of whom held widely different views than modern-day Islam when it comes to the Quran's states as the word of god (or not), this post is aimed at Ashari, Maturidi and Ahlul Hadith/Athari aqeedah sects who make up the majority of Muslims today, collectively considered to be under the umbrella of Ahlul Sunnah Wal Jema'ah (Literally meaning "The People of the Prophet's Tradition and Consensus" or to make it easier to understand "The Followers of the Prophet's Teachings and the Righteous Community"). This term is commonly understood in Islam as those who follow the true and righteous path in Islam which according to the hadiths, out of 73 deviant sects, only 1 (the above I already mention) will be on the correct spiritual path.
Why do I say this problem is akin to the Trinity problem in Christianity? Both are key problems that form the basis of the entire religion, not just for an individual believer but also for the scholars who dabble in religious sciences. Both the Quran and Trinity make up the core fundamental teachings upon which other teachings are established and expanded further. Without these key concepts, the entire premise of both religions (Islam and Christianity) would fall apart within a matter of seconds. Both issues are also hotly debated even to this day. As I mentioned before, the issue of the Quran's creation or non-creation was an important issue that occupied the minds of early-century Muslim scholars and thinkers, to the point schisms and breakaways from the main branch started to emerge. The same thing happened in Christianity with the Trinity which led to excommunication, the Arian controversy, and multiple individual distinct sects, all of whom have a different understanding of what the Trinity is.
Last, I would also like to mention that considering the Trinity has been severely criticized by non-Christians alike as proof of Christianity's falsehood and internal contradictions, then the same should be said with Islam's problem of the Quran's status. However, unlike in Islam, Christianity continued to debate up to the present day and even adopted Greek philosophical concepts to better explain away the Trinity and the relationship between each Divine Person of the Trinity. In Islam, the opposite occurred. Those who used Greek philosophy and rhetoric were condemned as either falling into falsehood or corrupting the religion by introducing pagan concepts. Ironically, the most condemned bunch of the Muslim sects I'll talk about below, the Mutazilites were the ones who most used philosophy which led to their rejection of the Quran's non-createdness.
Due to the decline of the Mutazilite sect, the rise of more conservative movements, and the criticism of Aristotelian philosophical ideas by Al-Ghazali (Note, he wasn't against philosophy, he was against philosophical ideas that went against Islam like the eternity of the world and denying bodily resurrection in the afterlife), theological discussions and debates surrounding the question faded away. Even now, most Muslims consider the issue "solved" and simply adopt one of the three main positions. Unsurprisingly, while the West and Christianity continued adopting new ideas, this means the Muslim positions lacked much substance and arguments seen in Christianity with Greek and Neo-Platonist ideas which in turn, means there are tons of problems with their positions, (which is the whole point of the post)
Now, with that out of the way, let's begin.
How Have Muslims Historically Responded to this Problem?
There are two answers to the question of the Quran's status. One, to affirm that it is the literal word of god from Allah Himself which existed with him since eternity or to affirm it is a created being just like every other creature and human planet earth. The second view doesn't mean that the Quran is simply the work of man, quite the opposite. Rather, it posits that the Quran still holds religious significance as Islam's holy book and is still the Word of God but it was created at a later time by God, not existing eternally with god before the creation of everything. In the second view, the Quran still holds religious significance for praying, guidance, and the basis for Islam, only that it is of a lower status than god himself, being a creation of god that was created at a certain time.
The second view is considered invalid and rejected by all major sects of Islam in the modern era (Ashari, Maturidi, Athari) as a heretical belief that the Mutazilites (The Withdrawers) held. I'm not going to go into who they are, what is their history, or what are their beliefs (you can google it yourself). Just know these are the guys who believe the Quran was a creation of god and were condemned by pretty much every Islamic group and sect from their beginning all the way up to the present modern day. This is one the only issues where every Islamic sect agrees with each other in condemning this belief, be it Ashari, Maturidi, or Athari. Thus, the second option then is 100% of the table for most Muslims, unless they want to affirm holding beliefs of a heretical group that died out 1000 years ago. I don't think any Muslim will dare to affirm Mutazilite beliefs for fear of ridicule and committing major sins, so there's not much here to discuss. For the sake of brevity, I will address the second view since the one even Muslims will deny and reject. After that, I'll address the Second View.
The Second View
But for the sake of argument, I'll assume some rare brave Mutazilite Muslim wants to give it a try. Now, here are some of my questions for you. If the Quran is a creation of god and not the literal Word of God before time immemorial, what is the Quran's relationship with god? You believe these are still words from Allah that help mankind to arrive at the truth and Islam yet at the same you also believe that these were created at a time later than god. How can something that is both speech from god and also created by god himself exist simultaneously at the same time? Anything that is created at a later time means it's a creation, a contingent object that depends on an external creator. It can't be part of god because god is eternal, atemporal, necessary, and independent of everything and anything. If it were god or contained some part of god inside of it, then this is no different than Jesus and the Son of God in Christianity where it contains both a human and godly nature, so does that mean you now believe the Quran to be both god and creation? Just like the Christians who you condemn as a false corrupted religion? This is the First Problem you must face, that be affirming it is both from god and not god, you are throwing yourself into the same pit as Christianity with a dual nature which is already a false religion. I like to call people who affirm this stance "Dualists".
The Second Problem "dualists" face is that this nullifies the Quran's honorific status in Islam, which goes against what the majority of the Muslim world believes in. For Dualists, what is the Quran's honorific and spiritual status in Islam now? We've all seen Muslim riots and protests against the burning or stepping on the Quran by non-Muslims around the world. A man burns or rips up the Quran and the entire Muslim world goes into a frenzy. In Islam, simply placing the Quran on the floor is considered disrespectful and sinful. In the majority of sects today, the Quran must be honored and respected 24/7 partly due to the fact Muslims believe it to be the literal Word. But for Dualists, what is your stance and reason for continuing to respect the Quran? Considering you no longer believe the Quran to be the actual Word, can non-Muslims now vandalize, rip apart, step on, or place the Quran on the floor?? Would you have any problem with it? It's no longer the Word itself but a creation of god. Sure, you might ask others to "respect other religions and beliefs" but aside from this, what else do you have?? Is simply putting a religious book on the floor disrespecting other religions? What makes your holy book now any different from the Jewish and Christian perspectives on their religious books? They don't go into a frenzy every time Bibles are burned or disrespected. Will you do the same thing?
The Third Problem since it's a created thing, wouldn't this also mean that at some point in the future, the Quran no longer exists? That the Quran is finite and will at some point cease to exist? Wouldn't this mean at some point, Islam itself becomes useless because the number one source for everything, the Quran no longer exists? The Quran will cease to exist if it were created, when it happens, will the meaning of the verses and Muslim understanding built up over the centuries also cease to exist? Tafsirs, Fiqh, and Tajwid all suddenly become useless and void of any meaning because the backbone of Islam, the Quran no longer exists. What about the Muslim understanding of what Allah is? Isn't that detrimental should the Quran cease to exist? The best outcome is that Muslims still retain the knowledge but Islam becomes spineless without a religious book and the worst outcome is the complete disintegration of Islam as everything built upon the Quran, now becomes useless. It would mean the complete death of Islam as a major Abrahamic religion.
Next, what about during the Hour, when everything in the heavens and on the Earth will be destroyed and no longer exist? Muslims believe that when the Hour arrives, everything will be destroyed. Every human, child, animal, plant, planet, universe, devil, and angel will die inevitably. Only god remains. Due to this, according to Dualists, will the Quran experience the same fate? All of its verses and Surahs destroyed by god himself. Now I know Muslims, even those of other sects believe the Quran will disappear bit by bit before the Hour as a sign of the impending doom and apocalypse. However, other Muslims believe that yes, the Quran will disappear but the verses themselves remain preserved with god i.e. Allah since these are the literal words of god himself. In a sense, the verses suddenly don't exist, they return back to god.
TLDR, the Dualist Mutazilite view implies a contradiction where the Quran is both God and not God at the same time, it nullifies the Quran's holy status and the divine meaning of the verses, and last, it means the Quran is finite and will cease to exist at some point in the future.
Now, onto the Ashari, Maturidi and Athari sects,
The First View (The Majority)
These three are the most prominent and widely held doctrinal sects in the current Muslim population. I will be splitting the next sections into two sections, Ashari-Maturidi (since both are quite similar and considered a single unified school of thought by Muslim scholars) and the Athari school.
Ashari-Maturidi
The Asharis and Maturidis believe the Quran and its verses to be the literal Word of God itself, with Allah since eternity before time however they believe the book form of the Quran (mushaf), the one which every Muslim holds and reads is of man-made origin. In other words, the verses, sentences, letters, and meaning of the text are from god himself while the cover, paper, ink, writing, and publishing are from mankind. The Ash'ari creed makes a point of difference between the content of the Quran and the physical manifestation of it (in speech or as pages in a book).
The Main Problem with this argument as said by Atharis and Mutazilites is that this strips the Quran of its spiritual and holy essence in Islam. If the real divine aspect of the Quran that came from god itself are the verses and meaning of it only, then should we burn every last Quran in the world, it wouldn't be a problem. After all, the divine part still exists as it is from and with god himself, only the earthly worldly portions of it get destroyed. Why's that a problem? I mean what is the problem spiritually concerning Islam's doctrinal theology itself? What's the problem with destroying the cover or vandalizing the writing of it? It's not from god, it's man-made. The effect of this would be enormous.
This means now non-Muslims and Islamaphobes can now burn, rip, tear apart, step on, vandalize, and desecrate the Quran because they are only destroying the part that is not divine. Would Asharis or Maturidis agree to this? Is now destroying the Quran not a major sin but actually allowed? The true essence of the Quran i.e. the part that is truly divine remains preserved and exists since humans were created and will continue to exist long after everything has died and withered away. The vandalization and desecration of it does not affect the Quran because the true divine verses and meaning remain preserved. This problem is similar to the Second Problem with the Mutazilite belief, it nullifies and strips away the Quran's holy status and honorific place among the Muslim community. If it isn't truly god's divine word, what's the problem if it gets destroyed, wet, or burned?
Heck, I've heard this same argument from other sects, claiming and accusing the Ashari are just Mutazilites in disguise because their main stance of the Quran's identity revolves back to the Mutazilite position where the Quran is a creation of god. One of the main accusations against the Ashari sect is that it's just a rehash version of Mutazilite or Jahmiyyah theology (I don't have time to explain what this is right now, better if you look it up yourselves) due to similarities in doctrine and also because Imam Ashari, the founder was once a Mutazilite himself (not helping the Ashari case) but Asharis claim he renounced all Mutazilite theology and returned back to the true correct path. In this case, should the objection above against the Ashari-Maturidi position succeed, then it would help critics a lot against Asharism.
The Second Problem with holding the Ashari position is that this resembles the idolatry of Hinduism and Paganism or at least, is slipping into idolatry practice. If they claim the Speech of God is contained within the letters, pages, and ink of the Mushaf (the Quran's Uthmanic standardized codex), then how dare they believe the actions of humans can absorb and physicalize the Sacred Divine Speech of God, for Muslims believe god can never be limited by His creatures. This would also mean they believe the ink written on the Quran's pages is a physical intermediary, designed to encapsulate the Speech of God into a physical form, no different than the idols of Hindus and Pagans who believe their idols to be an intermediary or a worldly representation of the True Divine Nature.
Hindus don't claim they worship idols, rather they believe them to be ways to spiritually connect with the divine as a locus for prayer just like how Muslims consider the Kaaba as the direction for prayer, not an idol for worship or as a reminder for believers of the faith similar to how a photo of a spiritual leader is a sign of respect and a daily reminder every-day when you wake up. How is this different than believing the ink inside the Quran holds the truth or emulates the Divine Nature from the Ashari claim? Ashari Muslims affirm the Quran is still the Word of God just represented through a physical form, so how is this not idolatry? Believing that a physical human-made physical manifestation holds the Divine Speech so that followers of Islam can get closer to god?
This would be even worse than the Mutazilites, for committing idolatry whether intentionally or not is a major grave sin in Islam, to the point those that who commit it and do not repent back are considered as Kafir (infidels). If even they aren't committing idolatry and shirk (polytheism), another major sin in Islam, then at the very least, they believe that a divine part of God can be captured inside the ink and pen of writers as if they the Speech of God and the ink become one and the same, another reference to the Christian belief of God having both a Divine and Human Nature. Of course, Muslims and Ashari Muslims consider this to be heretical and blasphemous, but what's the difference between believing the Quran is both man-made and divine versus the Christological belief of Jesus being both God and Man?
The Third Problem with the Ashari answer that the Quran itself is created while the Speech of God isn't is where is the Speech of God then? Asharis can't answer that it is still in heaven for they also believe the Mushaf or Quran contains the Word and Speech of God. If they believe that it is still in heaven with god and not on earth, then what are they even reading every day? Clearly not the Speech of God if they claim it isn't with us now, perhaps an imperfect human copy of the divine Speech of God but that would mean the Quran is imperfect and the work of man, which would be affirming the Mutazilite position. So they can't claim it is both in the heavens and on the earth nor claim it is either in the heavens only or on the earth with mankind only.
I already explained they also can't say the Speech of God is contained inside the ink and letters of the Quran for that means the Divine Speech has become limited because of it. God in Islam can never be limited, nor can His creatures limit god. So if isn't option A, B, or C, where is the Holy Sacred Speech of God then? The Speech which is supposed to be the principle guiding force for all of mankind especially, Muslims. How can Asharis then claim they believe in the Quran as the revelation and Word of God sent down to Muhammad if they can't tell us where in their holy book, is the Speech of God itself? At worst, this means the Ashari belief entails the Quran isn't holy or divine thus eliminating Islam's entire main source and one of the 6 pillars of Iman (faith), and at best, reading the Quran isn't a holy act nor can be used as a book for guidance, for Muslims aren't reading the Word of God then. They are reading an imperfect fallible man-made copy of the Speech of God, not the true Divine Inspiration from Allah.
TLDR, the Ashari-Maturidi middle path that the Quran was uncreated and eternal, yet its ink and paper, individual letters and words were created strips the Quran has multiple problems, some may even go against what Islam stands for. It strips the Quran of its Divine Sacred Essence as the Word of God, at worse it may lead to shirk and idolatry akin to the Hindus and Pagans, and at best, Asharis can't point to us where the Word and Speech of God is in the Quran.
Athari/Ahlul Hadith
Now for the Atharis, they are strict literalists who believe the Quran and Allah's Speech both are uncreated unlike the Asharis/Maturidis who adopt a middle path, or the Mutazilite who outright claim the Quran was created, the extreme position.
The First Problem with the Athari position is pretty clear, if the Quran is the literal Word of God completely, then does that mean what Muslims are holding is a literal piece of God here on earth in the moral realm? Does that mean god is with us all the time? How can god, who Muslims consider as being transcendent be here on earth with mankind? If the Quran is the literal physical Speech of God and not just metaphorically or analogically, then does this mean the Speech of God exists on Earth? How can god be here on Earth? The Atharis believe literally that the Quran is the Speech of God, so unless they claim the Speech of God suddenly transformed into a physical object (which I'll address below), the Quran would be a god or at least have a piece of the divine essence of Allah.
This is no different than the Christian position where there exists a God in heaven and a God on Earth at the same time. As I already mentioned, Muslims consider the Christian position of a god on earth unacceptable yet when we look at their own views, we find (in the Athari case) a piece of god exists on earth. Allah still exists in the heavens, yet the Speech of God exists here in the Quran. Let's not even get into the issue of a transcendent god existing in the mortal physical realm, where the laws of physics govern meaning god would be limited in some capacity (which most Muslims would see as ridiculous)
The Second Problem is the relationship between the Quran (God's Speech) and God himself. Considering the Quran was revealed to Muhammad and sent down by Gabriel, how should we understand the Speech of God is here now? Do Atharis believe that the Speech of God suddenly separated from the main body when the Quran was revealed and sent down to earth? Or do Atharis believe the Quran is still the undivided Speech of God, in which case a part of god is literally on earth?
Or what about when the Quran was compiled in book form starting with Abu Bakr's reign and ending with Uthman's standardization? Should we take this to mean now not only does the Speech of God literally exist on earth but the Speech of God now has taken shape, molded into letters and words while compiled into a book equipped with paper pages and covers from front to back? If they want to deny these are from god i.e. the physical cover is man-made, then they would be subscribing to the Ashari-Maturidi doctrine of the middle path (which I already showed also has problems). If they want to take the other path and claim the Quran we have now is not the Word of God literally, then they would be subscribing to the heretical Mutazilite position which also, has tons of religious and doctrinal problems.
TLDR, the Athari literalist position invites more harm than good when it comes to answering the question of the Quran's uncreated nature. It would mean god is literally on earth, or a piece of god's divine essence is. Affirming that a piece of the Divine Essence exists here on earth with mankind would be something similar to the Christian belief that god exists both in the heavens and on earth (Father and Son). Other than that, it would also complicate the relationship between the Quran and God even more. If the Quran is the literal Word and Speech of God, how do Atharis explain the Quran's standardization into a single written book with ink, paper, and covers? Does it mean the Speech of God underwent a physical transformation?
Consequences
Islam posits the Quran to be the Word of God from Allah Himself, however how exactly does that work leads to massive problems within Islam's doctrinal framework. Muslims can't state the Quran is the true literal Speech of God otherwise they would be committing a blasphemous act by believing god is literally on earth with us at this very moment. They also can't deny it is the Speech of God for Islam considers the Quran to be the perfect Kalamullah (literally the Word of God). It is one of the core tenets of belief that Muslims believe the Quran to be the actual Words of God sent down to Muhammad as the last revelation. They also can't adopt a middle path like the Asharis-Maturidis because I've already shown that this just leaves the Quran inside a grey area, it's both the Word of God and also not the Word of God at the same time. Other problems are also relevant which I've already discussed above. Either the middle approach collapses into itself, becoming either one the extreme views, literal divine affirmation like the Atharis, or the extreme divine nullification like the Mutazilites.
Other religions don't have this problem. They do not believe Jesus or Moses were gifted the actual literal Words and Speech of God which existed since time immemorial. Christians believe the Bible was divinely authored by the Apostles of Jesus, where the Holy Spirit guides the writers of the Bible into writing down the true teachings of Jesus and Christianity. Christians don't believe the Bible's passages are the literal Speech of God which has existed with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as if affirming the Bible was also another Divine Person of the Trinity. No, only Muslims as far as I know affirm both their Holy Book contains the Speech of God which both exists on Earth and also with God up in heaven but that leaves them in a contradiction of whether to affirm the Quran is God Himself on Earth or the true Words of God are still up in heaven. After all, how can the Divine Nature which is uncorrupted and perfect exist in a world not perfect, but actually filled with sin, corruption, and spiritual pollution?
In the end, Muslims face a dilemma with regard to the Quran's Holy and Divine Nature. This a dilemma which after going through all the possible Muslim answers that have been given over the years, still fails to give us a proper satisfying answer.
Conclusion
All the responses and viewpoints of the major Islamic sects fail to answer the question, of whether the Quran is created or not. They tried to square a circle by trying to find a balance between affirming the Quran is the divine Word of God while at the same time not falling into a literalist interpretation where god is on Earth (as the Atharis do). However, all responses so far have failed to properly find the right solution, all either fall into extremities at both ends of the spectrum (Mutazilite and Athari) or tried to strike a balance, but only managed to kick the can down the road even further.
If Christianity has the Problem of the Trinity, a major fundamental question that still has philosophers and theologians scratching their heads trying to find an answer, then the Problem of the Quran's Nature is the Islamic version of it. The difference is while Christians continue to debate and argue about the Trinity's true nature, Muslim and Islamic scholars have relatively abandoned the debate, choosing to hold either one of the three major schools of thought. My personal opinion is this is an unfortunate situation, ever since the decline of philosophy in Islamic thought, Kalam and Falsafah (Islamic philosophy) have gained a bad reputation amongst Muslims as being a "gateway to blasphemy". Rarely you will find Muslim scholars in the modern era debate about this, let alone teach laymen Muslims about these topics.
At the very least, I hope my post can inspire future Muslims to look into this topic further, creating new fascinating answers and arguments that contribute to the Muslim and non-Muslim understanding of what Allah is in Islam.

Introduction
Muslims believe the Quran, the holy book of Islam itself is not just a religious book for guidance but also the literal word of god i.e. Allah itself. In everyday conversations, you will hear Muslims call it Kalamullah (Word of God), not in the Christian sense where the Word is Jesus and God but actual sayings, sentences, and words uttered by god himself and compiled into a single book by human hands. While Muslims are proud of their holy book being the literal words of god sent down to all of mankind, there are a few problems with that mainly concerning Islam's doctrinal theology and its core beliefs.
Disclaimer and Notes
Now, before I start, a disclaimer. The issue of the Quran being god's word or not has been one of the most pretentious and divided issues in the Muslim community. Because of this issue, multiple sects (considered deviant and heretical today) popped up in the early years of Islam's history leading to multiple debates, condemnations, and even inquisitions for those that were against the majority-held view in history. So to make it easy considering Islam has tons of historical sects, all of whom held widely different views than modern-day Islam when it comes to the Quran's states as the word of god (or not), this post is aimed at Ashari, Maturidi and Ahlul Hadith/Athari aqeedah sects who make up the majority of Muslims today, collectively considered to be under the umbrella of Ahlul Sunnah Wal Jema'ah (Literally meaning "The People of the Prophet's Tradition and Consensus" or to make it easier to understand "The Followers of the Prophet's Teachings and the Righteous Community"). This term is commonly understood in Islam as those who follow the true and righteous path in Islam which according to the hadiths, out of 73 deviant sects, only 1 (the above I already mention) will be on the correct spiritual path.
Why do I say this problem is akin to the Trinity problem in Christianity? Both are key problems that form the basis of the entire religion, not just for an individual believer but also for the scholars who dabble in religious sciences. Both the Quran and Trinity make up the core fundamental teachings upon which other teachings are established and expanded further. Without these key concepts, the entire premise of both religions (Islam and Christianity) would fall apart within a matter of seconds. Both issues are also hotly debated even to this day. As I mentioned before, the issue of the Quran's creation or non-creation was an important issue that occupied the minds of early-century Muslim scholars and thinkers, to the point schisms and breakaways from the main branch started to emerge. The same thing happened in Christianity with the Trinity which led to excommunication, the Arian controversy, and multiple individual distinct sects, all of whom have a different understanding of what the Trinity is.
Last, I would also like to mention that considering the Trinity has been severely criticized by non-Christians alike as proof of Christianity's falsehood and internal contradictions, then the same should be said with Islam's problem of the Quran's status. However, unlike in Islam, Christianity continued to debate up to the present day and even adopted Greek philosophical concepts to better explain away the Trinity and the relationship between each Divine Person of the Trinity. In Islam, the opposite occurred. Those who used Greek philosophy and rhetoric were condemned as either falling into falsehood or corrupting the religion by introducing pagan concepts. Ironically, the most condemned bunch of the Muslim sects I'll talk about below, the Mutazilites were the ones who most used philosophy which led to their rejection of the Quran's non-createdness.
Due to the decline of the Mutazilite sect, the rise of more conservative movements, and the criticism of Aristotelian philosophical ideas by Al-Ghazali (Note, he wasn't against philosophy, he was against philosophical ideas that went against Islam like the eternity of the world and denying bodily resurrection in the afterlife), theological discussions and debates surrounding the question faded away. Even now, most Muslims consider the issue "solved" and simply adopt one of the three main positions. Unsurprisingly, while the West and Christianity continued adopting new ideas, this means the Muslim positions lacked much substance and arguments seen in Christianity with Greek and Neo-Platonist ideas which in turn, means there are tons of problems with their positions, (which is the whole point of the post)
Now, with that out of the way, let's begin.
How Have Muslims Historically Responded to this Problem?
There are two answers to the question of the Quran's status. One, to affirm that it is the literal word of god from Allah Himself which existed with him since eternity or to affirm it is a created being just like every other creature and human planet earth. The second view doesn't mean that the Quran is simply the work of man, quite the opposite. Rather, it posits that the Quran still holds religious significance as Islam's holy book and is still the Word of God but it was created at a later time by God, not existing eternally with god before the creation of everything. In the second view, the Quran still holds religious significance for praying, guidance, and the basis for Islam, only that it is of a lower status than god himself, being a creation of god that was created at a certain time.
The second view is considered invalid and rejected by all major sects of Islam in the modern era (Ashari, Maturidi, Athari) as a heretical belief that the Mutazilites (The Withdrawers) held. I'm not going to go into who they are, what is their history, or what are their beliefs (you can google it yourself). Just know these are the guys who believe the Quran was a creation of god and were condemned by pretty much every Islamic group and sect from their beginning all the way up to the present modern day. This is one of the only issues where every Islamic sect agrees with each other in condemning this belief, be it Ashari, Maturidi, or Athari. Thus, the second option then is 100% of the table for most Muslims, unless they want to affirm holding beliefs of a heretical group that died out 1000 years ago. I don't think any Muslim will dare to affirm Mutazilite beliefs for fear of ridicule and committing major sins, so there's not much here to discuss. For the sake of brevity, I will address the second view since the one even Muslims will deny and reject. After that, I'll address the Second View
The Second View
But for the sake of argument, I'll assume some rare brave Mutazilite Muslim wants to give it a try. Now, here are some of my questions for you. If the Quran is a creation of god and not the literal Word of God before time immemorial, what is the Quran's relationship with god? You believe these are still words from Allah that help mankind to arrive at the truth and Islam yet at the same you also believe that these were created at a time later than god. How can something that is both speech from god and also created by god himself exist simultaneously at the same time? Anything that is created at a later time means it's a creation, a contingent object that depends on an external creator. It can't be part of god because god is eternal, atemporal, necessary, and independent of everything and anything. If it were god or contained some part of god inside of it, then this is no different than Jesus and the Son of God in Christianity where it contains both a human and godly nature, so does that mean you now believe the Quran to be both god and creation? Just like the Christians who you condemn as a false corrupted religion? This is the First Problem you must face, that be affirming it is both from god and not god, you are throwing yourself into the same pit as Christianity with a dual nature which is already a false religion. I like to call people who affirm this stance "Dualists".
The Second Problem "dualists" face is that this nullifies the Quran's honorific status in Islam, which goes against what the majority of the Muslim world believes in. For Dualists, what is the Quran's honorific and spiritual status in Islam now? We've all seen Muslim riots and protests against the burning or stepping on the Quran by non-Muslims around the world. A man burns or rips up the Quran and the entire Muslim world goes into a frenzy. In Islam, simply placing the Quran on the floor is considered disrespectful and sinful. In the majority of sects today, the Quran must be honored and respected 24/7 partly due to the fact Muslims believe it to be the literal Word. But for Dualists, what is your stance and reason for continuing to respect the Quran? Considering you no longer believe the Quran to be the actual Word, can non-Muslims now vandalize, rip apart, step on, or place the Quran on the floor?? Would you have any problem with it? It's no longer the Word itself but a creation of god. Sure, you might ask others to "respect other religions and beliefs" but aside from this, what else do you have?? Is simply putting a religious book on the floor disrespecting other religions? What makes your holy book now any different from the Jewish and Christian perspectives on their religious books? They don't go into a frenzy every time Bibles are burned or disrespected. Will you do the same thing?
The Third Problem since it's a created thing, wouldn't this also mean that at some point in the future, the Quran no longer exists? That the Quran is finite and will at some point cease to exist? Wouldn't this mean at some point, Islam itself becomes useless because the number one source for everything, the Quran no longer exists? The Quran will cease to exist if it were created, when it happens, will the meaning of the verses and Muslim understanding built up over the centuries also cease to exist? Tafsirs, Fiqh, and Tajwid all suddenly become useless and void of any meaning because the backbone of Islam, the Quran no longer exists. What about the Muslim understanding of what Allah is? Isn't that detrimental should the Quran cease to exist? The best outcome is that Muslims still retain the knowledge but Islam becomes spineless without a religious book and the worst outcome is the complete disintegration of Islam as everything built upon the Quran, now becomes useless. It would mean the complete death of Islam as a major Abrahamic religion.
Next, what about during the Hour, when everything in the heavens and on the Earth will be destroyed and no longer exist? Muslims believe that when the Hour arrives, everything will be destroyed. Every human, child, animal, plant, planet, universe, devil, and angel will die inevitably. Only god remains. Due to this, according to Dualists, will the Quran experience the same fate? All of its verses and Surahs destroyed by god himself. Now I know Muslims, even those of other sects believe the Quran will disappear bit by bit before the Hour as a sign of the impending doom and apocalypse. However, other Muslims believe that yes, the Quran will disappear but the verses themselves remain preserved with god i.e. Allah since these are the literal words of god himself. In a sense, the verses suddenly don't exist, they return back to god.
TLDR, the Dualist Mutazilite view implies a contradiction where the Quran is both God and not God at the same time, it nullifies the Quran's holy status and the divine meaning of the verses, and last, it means the Quran is finite and will cease to exist at some point in the future.
Now, onto the Ashari, Maturidi and Athari sects,
The First View (The Majority)
These three are the most prominent and widely held doctrinal sects in the current Muslim population. I will be splitting the next sections into two sections, Ashari-Maturidi (since both are quite similar and considered a single unified school of thought by Muslim scholars) and the Athari school.
Ashari-Maturidi
The Asharis and Maturidis believe the Quran and its verses to be the literal Word of God itself, with Allah since eternity before time however they believe the book form of the Quran (mushaf), the one which every Muslim holds and reads is of man-made origin. In other words, the verses, sentences, letters, and meaning of the text are from god himself while the cover, paper, ink, writing, and publishing are from mankind. The Ash'ari creed makes a point of difference between the content of the Quran and the physical manifestation of it (in speech or as pages in a book).
The Main Problem with this argument as said by Atharis and Mutazilites is that this strips the Quran of its spiritual and holy essence in Islam. If the real divine aspect of the Quran that came from god itself are the verses and meaning of it only, then should we burn every last Quran in the world, it wouldn't be a problem. After all, the divine part still exists as it is from and with god himself, only the earthly worldly portions of it get destroyed. Why's that a problem? I mean what is the problem spiritually concerning Islam's doctrinal theology itself? What's the problem with destroying the cover or vandalizing the writing of it? It's not from god, it's man-made. The effect of this would be enormous.
This means now non-Muslims and Islamaphobes can now burn, rip, tear apart, step on, vandalize, and desecrate the Quran because they are only destroying the part that is not divine. Would Asharis or Maturidis agree to this? Is now destroying the Quran not a major sin but actually allowed? The true essence of the Quran i.e. the part that is truly divine remains preserved and exists since humans were created and will continue to exist long after everything has died and withered away. The vandalization and desecration of it does not affect the Quran because the true divine verses and meaning remain preserved. This problem is similar to the Second Problem with the Mutazilite belief, it nullifies and strips away the Quran's holy status and honorific place among the Muslim community. If it isn't truly god's divine word, what's the problem if it gets destroyed, wet, or burned?
Heck, I've heard this same argument from other sects, claiming and accusing the Ashari are just Mutazilites in disguise because their main stance of the Quran's identity revolves back to the Mutazilite position where the Quran is a creation of god. One of the main accusations against the Ashari sect is that it's just a rehash version of Mutazilite or Jahmiyyah theology (I don't have time to explain what this is right now, better if you look it up yourselves) due to similarities in doctrine and also because Imam Ashari, the founder was once a Mutazilite himself (not helping the Ashari case) but Asharis claim he renounced all Mutazilite theology and returned back to the true correct path. In this case, should the objection above against the Ashari-Maturidi position succeed, then it would help critics a lot against Asharism.
The Second Problem with holding the Ashari position is that this resembles the idolatry of Hinduism and Paganism or at least, is slipping into idolatry practice. If they claim the Speech of God is contained within the letters, pages, and ink of the Mushaf (the Quran's Uthmanic standardized codex), then how dare they believe the actions of humans can absorb and physicalize the Sacred Divine Speech of God, for Muslims believe god can never be limited by His creatures. This would also mean they believe the ink written on the Quran's pages is a physical intermediary, designed to encapsulate the Speech of God into a physical form, no different than the idols of Hindus and Pagans who believe their idols to be an intermediary or a worldly representation of the True Divine Nature.
Hindus don't claim they worship idols, rather they believe them to be ways to spiritually connect with the divine as a locus for prayer just like how Muslims consider the Kaaba as the direction for prayer, not an idol for worship or as a reminder for believers of the faith similar to how a photo of a spiritual leader is a sign of respect and a daily reminder every-day when you wake up. How is this different than believing the ink inside the Quran holds the truth or emulates the Divine Nature from the Ashari claim? Ashari Muslims affirm the Quran is still the Word of God just represented through a physical form, so how is this not idolatry? Believing that a physical human-made physical manifestation holds the Divine Speech so that followers of Islam can get closer to god?
This would be even worse than the Mutazilites, for committing idolatry whether intentionally or not is a major grave sin in Islam, to the point those that who commit it and do not repent back are considered as Kafir (infidels). If even they aren't committing idolatry and shirk (polytheism), another major sin in Islam, then at the very least, they believe that a divine part of God can be captured inside the ink and pen of writers as if they the Speech of God and the ink become one and the same, another reference to the Christian belief of God having both a Divine and Human Nature. Of course, Muslims and Ashari Muslims consider this to be heretical and blasphemous, but what's the difference between believing the Quran is both man-made and divine versus the Christological belief of Jesus being both God and Man?
The Third Problem with the Ashari answer that the Quran itself is created while the Speech of God isn't is where is the Speech of God then? Asharis can't answer that it is still in heaven for they also believe the Mushaf or Quran contains the Word and Speech of God. If they believe that it is still in heaven with god and not on earth, then what are they even reading every day? Clearly not the Speech of God if they claim it isn't with us now, perhaps an imperfect human copy of the divine Speech of God but that would mean the Quran is imperfect and the work of man, which would be affirming the Mutazilite position. So they can't claim it is both in the heavens and on the earth nor claim it is either in the heavens only or on the earth with mankind only.
I already explained they also can't say the Speech of God is contained inside the ink and letters of the Quran for that means the Divine Speech has become limited because of it. God in Islam can never be limited, nor can His creatures limit god. So if isn't option A, B, or C, where is the Holy Sacred Speech of God then? The Speech which is supposed to be the principle guiding force for all of mankind especially, Muslims. How can Asharis then claim they believe in the Quran as the revelation and Word of God sent down to Muhammad if they can't tell us where in their holy book, is the Speech of God itself? At worst, this means the Ashari belief entails the Quran isn't holy or divine thus eliminating Islam's entire main source and one of the 6 pillars of Iman (faith), and at best, reading the Quran isn't a holy act nor can be used as a book for guidance, for Muslims aren't reading the Word of God then. They are reading an imperfect fallible man-made copy of the Speech of God, not the true Divine Inspiration from Allah.
TLDR, the Ashari-Maturidi middle path that the Quran was uncreated and eternal, yet its ink and paper, individual letters and words were created strips the Quran has multiple problems, some may even go against what Islam stands for. It strips the Quran of its Divine Sacred Essence as the Word of God, at worse it may lead to shirk and idolatry akin to the Hindus and Pagans, and at best, Asharis can't point to us where the Word and Speech of God is in the Quran.
Athari/Ahlul Hadith
Now for the Atharis, they are strict literalists who believe the Quran and Allah's Speech both are uncreated unlike the Asharis/Maturidis who adopt a middle path, or the Mutazilite who outright claim the Quran was created, the extreme position.
The First Problem with the Athari position is pretty clear, if the Quran is the literal Word of God completely, then does that mean what Muslims are holding is a literal piece of God here on earth in the moral realm? Does that mean god is with us all the time? How can god, who Muslims consider as being transcendent be here on earth with mankind? If the Quran is the literal physical Speech of God and not just metaphorically or analogically, then does this mean the Speech of God exists on Earth? How can god be here on Earth? The Atharis believe literally that the Quran is the Speech of God, so unless they claim the Speech of God suddenly transformed into a physical object (which I'll address below), the Quran would be a god or at least have a piece of the divine essence of Allah.
This is no different than the Christian position where there exists a God in heaven and a God on Earth at the same time. As I already mentioned, Muslims consider the Christian position of a god on earth unacceptable yet when we look at their own views, we find (in the Athari case) a piece of god exists on earth. Allah still exists in the heavens, yet the Speech of God exists here in the Quran. Let's not even get into the issue of a transcendent god existing in the mortal physical realm, where the laws of physics govern meaning god would be limited in some capacity (which most Muslims would see as ridiculous)
The Second Problem is the relationship between the Quran (God's Speech) and God himself. Considering the Quran was revealed to Muhammad and sent down by Gabriel, how should we understand the Speech of God is here now? Do Atharis believe that the Speech of God suddenly separated from the main body when the Quran was revealed and sent down to earth? Or do Atharis believe the Quran is still the undivided Speech of God, in which case a part of god is literally on earth?
Or what about when the Quran was compiled in book form starting with Abu Bakr's reign and ending with Uthman's standardization? Should we take this to mean now not only does the Speech of God literally exist on earth but the Speech of God now has taken shape, molded into letters and words while compiled into a book equipped with paper pages and covers from front to back? If they want to deny these are from god i.e. the physical cover is man-made, then they would be subscribing to the Ashari-Maturidi doctrine of the middle path (which I already showed also has problems). If they want to take the other path and claim the Quran we have now is not the Word of God literally, then they would be subscribing to the heretical Mutazilite position which also, has tons of religious and doctrinal problems.
TLDR, the Athari literalist position invites more harm than good when it comes to answering the question of the Quran's uncreated nature. It would mean god is literally on earth, or a piece of god's divine essence is. Affirming that a piece of the Divine Essence exists here on earth with mankind would be something similar to the Christian belief that god exists both in the heavens and on earth (Father and Son). Other than that, it would also complicate the relationship between the Quran and God even more. If the Quran is the literal Word and Speech of God, how do Atharis explain the Quran's standardization into a single written book with ink, paper, and covers? Does it mean the Speech of God underwent a physical transformation?
Consequences
Islam posits the Quran to be the Word of God from Allah Himself, however how exactly does that work leads to massive problems within Islam's doctrinal framework. Muslims can't state the Quran is the true literal Speech of God otherwise they would be committing a blasphemous act by believing god is literally on earth with us at this very moment. They also can't deny it is the Speech of God for Islam considers the Quran to be the perfect Kalamullah (literally the Word of God). It is one of the core tenets of belief that Muslims believe the Quran to be the actual Words of God sent down to Muhammad as the last revelation. They also can't adopt a middle path like the Asharis-Maturidis because I've already shown that this just leaves the Quran inside a grey area, it's both the Word of God and also not the Word of God at the same time. Other problems are also relevant which I've already discussed above. Either the middle approach collapses into itself, becoming either one the extreme views, literal divine affirmation like the Atharis, or the extreme divine nullification like the Mutazilites.
Other religions don't have this problem. They do not believe Jesus or Moses were gifted the actual literal Words and Speech of God which existed since time immemorial. Christians believe the Bible was divinely authored by the Apostles of Jesus, where the Holy Spirit guides the writers of the Bible into writing down the true teachings of Jesus and Christianity. Christians don't believe the Bible's passages are the literal Speech of God which has existed with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as if affirming the Bible was also another Divine Person of the Trinity. No, only Muslims as far as I know affirm both their Holy Book contains the Speech of God which both exists on Earth and also with God up in heaven but that leaves them in a contradiction of whether to affirm the Quran is God Himself on Earth or the true Words of God are still up in heaven. After all, how can the Divine Nature which is uncorrupted and perfect exist in a world not perfect, but actually filled with sin, corruption, and spiritual pollution?
In the end, Muslims face a dilemma with regard to the Quran's Holy and Divine Nature. This a dilemma which after going through all the possible Muslim answers that have been given over the years, still fails to give us a proper satisfying answer.
Conclusion
All the responses and viewpoints of the major Islamic sects fail to answer the question, of whether the Quran is created or not. They tried to square a circle by trying to find a balance between affirming the Quran is the divine Word of God while at the same time not falling into a literalist interpretation where god is on Earth (as the Atharis do). However, all responses so far have failed to properly find the right solution, all either fall into extremities at both ends of the spectrum (Mutazilite and Athari) or tried to strike a balance, but only managed to kick the can down the road even further.
If Christianity has the Problem of the Trinity, a major fundamental question that still has philosophers and theologians scratching their heads trying to find an answer, then the Problem of the Quran's Nature is the Islamic version of it. The difference is while Christians continue to debate and argue about the Trinity's true nature, Muslim and Islamic scholars have relatively abandoned the debate, choosing to hold either one of the three major schools of thought. My personal opinion is this is an unfortunate situation, ever since the decline of philosophy in Islamic thought, Kalam and Falsafah (Islamic philosophy) have gained a bad reputation amongst Muslims as being a "gateway to blasphemy". Rarely you will find Muslim scholars in the modern era debate about this, let alone teach laymen Muslims about these topics.
At the very least, I hope my post can inspire future Muslims to look into this topic further, creating new fascinating answers and arguments that contribute to the Muslim and non-Muslim understanding of what Allah is in Islam.

A lot of people have a lot of bank switch questions. Many are answered in our Bank Switching Guide:
The BeermoneyUK Bank Switch Bribe Bible
But sometimes that post gets a little crowded, and we also get a lot of questions asked direct to the subreddit.
To streamline things a little, whilst (hopefully) making sure questions are answered, we're introducing a weekly post titled "The Bank Switcher".
How It Works:
Every week, a new "The Bank Switcher" thread will be created. It will be added to the sidebar and menus of the subreddit. And hopefully it will become the go-to spot to ask questions, share experiences, and discuss anything related to bank switching.
At the same time, all new posts about bank switching will be automatically removed from the subreddit and a stickied comment will be added to those to direct those questions to this thread.
So... please ask your questions about bank switching below.

This is to anyone who is so fixated on the point if Yasuke was or wasn't an actual Samurai in the past. What if I told you it didn't matter at all? In your pursuit of "historical accuracy" I'd like to highlight several instances where Assassins' creed allegedly followed history to a T. This is to highlight why it's unjustified in the first place. Assassin's creed has always been historical fiction. Anyone arguing against that is either unfamiliar with the series or is intentionally arguing in bad faith.

• Do you all remember that time in history it was recorded there was a civilization before ours?
• That time the civilization before ours created humanity in their advanced technology and created us in their image. Pretty sure that's how the bible depicted it. Also how we were created to be utilized as a working force to make their lives easier.
• That time humanity acquired a magical artifact that allowed us to free ourselves from our would be owners. Was that one in genesis?
• When a solar flare messed up the planet wiping out most of civilization. Causing the former advanced civilization having to mingle with our own race to survive. Also those descendants were gifted with magical, psychic powers, because we all know psychics are real.
• That time a single man toppled the assassin's brotherhood bringing an end to a mad man's tyranny.
• That time when Lorenzo Medici's assassination attempt was thwarted by Ezio, it's so inspiring that a fictional character was able to transcend past his written limitations to alter the course of real history.
• That time the Knights Templars weren't all eradicated in france, became the free masons, and to this day still operate under the guise of a real company known as Abstergo.
• That time a Native American turned Assassin saved George Washington's life, fought alongside the colonies, and helped construct America.
• Forgive me for these examples as they aren't as commonly known in the community unless you're familiar with some of the written work: The time Lyndon B Johnson orchestrated the JFK assassination to stop a coordinated effort with the russians to get to the moon where a piece of eden resided, the fact that MLK was an Assassin, and the many other alterations made to over exaggerate past figures in history to make for better entertainment.
• Let's not forget this synopsis of the very first game. That there's a literal device, that can be found today, that takes DNA strands and make you relive your ancestor's past life in VR Chat. Whose excited for the Meta Verse expansion that just dropped?

The point of all of that is to highlight a simple truth. The Assassin's creed franchise has ALWAYS deviated from historical accuracy for better storytelling, even fabricating things that simply didn't happen at all, and seemingly before this event no one cared. Because of the mantra, history is written by the winners; the Assassins' are an underground society whose tenant is "hidden in plain sight." Meaning the "truth" in AC is under the ruse that history had been interpreted incorrectly. That there are things we in modern civilization, what we've been told, doesn't necessarily mean it's the real truth. Why do you think the synopsis of the first game is to use the genetic material, to use your ancestor's past lives, to find out said "truths."
All of that is fine because it's HISTORICAL FICTION. By demanding only historical accuracy you take the fiction out and are left with only history.
So who cares if Yasuke was or wasn't an official samurai? When they can just easily masquerade it as his impact was minimized in recorded history because the nature of the plot, hiding in plain sight. As for the complaint about not having an Asian male playing the lead part maybe there is some merit to the claim; however, real fans of the series knew we had waited a long time for a game in Japan, when we first learned of a female Japanese assassin years back. Now it's somehow a problem that it's a female woman of japanese origin playing one of two protagonist of this story? We also had examples of other characters taking the lead role, even if momentarily, like DLC in black flag I believe; where we took the role of a man fighting against slavers during the slave trade.
Now Asmon is completely right to criticize the price point of this title. I completely agree with that stance and should other gamers, but let's not rally behind a lie that Assassin's creed has always "prided itself on historical accuracy" or any deviations of such is somehow a new foreign concept to the IP. It's not genuine, it's stupid, and highlights an even bigger issue that critics of those critiquing the game are going to latch onto. How the AC fandom had no quarrels with history being altered in the past, up until it was time for history to deviate to favor a black man.
I know we are tired of AAA titles doing these bait and switches. However, attacking this franchise for doing it isn't the win you think it is especially with all I've highlighted. Please, if you want to fight back do so on the context of the pricing and leave the insignificant changes to history, in an IP based off of Historical fiction, alone. Also fun fact, before it's said, yes I WAS an AC fanboy back in the day. Loved the games because I adore historical fiction and it was nice to see interpretations of what if's or what could have been. That's the enjoyment i got from the title, what I imagine a lot of people got out of it, and the writing quality seriously dropped in later titles. I hadn't played an AC title sense Syndicate. (Heard some of them actually got good, i'll take your word for it.)
But thanks for coming to my ted talk. I'm not expecting any real conversations about this or the points I made. Mostly because you all are so wrapped up in being angry to even attempt to reason too. Maybe in a few months people will come back, see this, and realize that maybe it wasn't the end of the world like they suspected. At least let the game come out, see for yourself, then make a choice if it's good story telling or not.

My husband (33M) and I (32F) gathered our friends and family together at our new house we are building before the drywall went up. We even flew out a couple people. We had everyone sign well wishes, prayers, or Bible verses on the beams.
There is one of my husbands friends (his best friends wife) that I’ve had a strained relationship with ever since my husband and I got engaged. My husband and I dated well less than a year before he proposed. We’ve been friends since we were in high school but always had other relationships going on at different stages in our lives.
His best friend and now wife, who we will call Zilla, had been dating nearly a decade with no ring. When we announced our engagement, she was horrible to me and at one friend gathering, other friends in our circle were congratulating us and wanted to see my ring and Zilla huffed really loud, threw her hand up and stormed off, grabbing her then boyfriend and left without saying goodbye (he did say bye).
Any time we were asked about our wedding, she had a disgusting look on her face and acted upset. She finally bullied and hissy fitted her way into a ring a month later because my husband’s best friends life was miserable any time we or our pending wedding got brought up. THEN all she wanted to do was talk about her wedding and complain how stressful it was and just wanted it to be over. Also to add, she planned her wedding less than a month after ours and we both were asked in be in the bridal party. She even had her mother call my then fiancé to ask why I didn’t have a bridesmaid dress 6 months before her wedding - mind you, I didn’t have my wedding dress yet. Zilla essentially made the year of our wedding hell and made everything about her. She and her now husband even went as far as to threaten not to come to our wedding if we did certain things for our wedding that they wanted to do for theirs, which genuinely hurt because if you truly love us, why withhold your company on one of the most important days of our lives.? Especially over details on someone else’s day??
Fast forward back to now, and my husband and I asked everyone over to our building to sign the beams and pop open the bottle I bought a couple years before, just for this occasion. All of our friends have children that are walking and talking. We haven’t had any children. My husband is over the moon that I’m pregnant, which I was worried about because we didn’t plan on having children. He was excited to announce at our gathering that we were expecting because everyone that was closest to us would be there.
Everyone showed up, took a tour of the layout, congratulated us and showed a lot of excitement for something we’ve wanted for a long time, a perfect and custom home of our own. Everyone signed beams - I’m truly in love with this idea and it’s so comforting to know we have love and prayers, verses and well wishes on the very bones of our home behind the now erected walls. A part of me wants to be resentful that Zilla signed anything but she did a Bible verse so, I can’t really be upset at that.
We popped open the bottle of champagne and made sure everyone had a glass and my husband made a toast and added our exciting baby news. Everyone was hooping and yelling “WHAT” “ARE YOU SERIOUS”. And Zilla said, “NO WAY! ME! TOO!” I couldn’t fix my face when she said this. I went from smiling and laughing hugely to not at all and just looking at her.
I know other people in their friend groups would be thrilled but I felt like she stole our moment. She had her moment when she was first pregnant. Which she also stole another friends moment and mistreated them when they got pregnant before her, until she finally got pregnant. Also, the last time Zilla was pregnant, that’s all she could talk about and she was miserable to be around if it wasn’t about her. And now I feel like I’m back to the year of our wedding where I’m sharing in a life event and I couldn’t just have a friend be happy for my husband and I. She couldn’t even congratulate us. She made it about her.
I was looking at Zilla and my husbands best friend and heard myself say, “Congrats!” And then I walked away. My husband and husband’s adopted parents (My MIL & FIL is what I refer to them as) followed me and I got in our car. My MIL climbed in the passenger seat and I was crying and upset. My husband opened my car door, hugged me and was trying to soothe me. He teased me that we should’ve seen that coming, she never lets anyone have their moment. I didn’t tell them bye and left with my MIL and my husband and FIL stayed behind until they left.
I wanted to flip out and tell her about herself. I’m still debating doing so but I’m afraid I’m not thinking clearly because of all the hormones. AITHA?

Hello! I have 5 cravings at the moment which I will detail below but first a bit about me:
I give 5-8 paragraphs on average per role and I can reply once at least once a day, as well as engage in a lively OOC with lots of awesome chatter, banter and brainstorming! Third person past tense is my comfort zone. I want there to be a selection of long-term plots and short-term plots throughout our RP, balanced genres with stakes being both high and low, ample slice of life and character development. I'm not here to rush anything. I also write on Discord only.
By the way, all characters are 18+ and I'd like my partners to be at least 21+ years of age!
Narcos: Looking for a Javier Peña for my OC. I'm happy to write as Murphy as needed. Something set in S1 would work for me. Maybe S2, though I'm not quite finished with it yet.
The Last of Us: I'd prefer writing as OC here but maybe Ellie. I'm looking for a Joel, something pre-season one or post season one. Nothing relating to the video games but I am slowly playing through Part 1.
The Mandalorian: I'm seeking a Din Djarin for my OC. Something pre-season one or set between the first two or last two seasons, would work for me. My Star Wars knowledge is spotty so please be patient, but I'm keen to learn from my partner and read/watch what one might recommend.
Kingsman: The Golden Circle: I'm happy to write Canon or OC and tweak the second film or do something beforehand. I'd love a Jack Daniels, I'm happy to write as Roxy or maybe a redeemed Poppy. I'd also love to have things set in both America and the UK, so our plots and settings can expand and Jack not be a double agent.
Baldur's Gate 3: A Gale or Astarion would be ideal here. I'm open to playing an OC or maybe Shadowheart, Lae'zel, or maybe Alfira. I think doing something post-game or something in the midst of it would work, I'm not too fussy about timing so I'm open to suggestions here. I have played some D&D but I'm not well-versed in the land of Faerûn so maybe we can explore that together.

completely change the idea of ​​the film, the first thing I would do would be to give Casandra Web spider powers and make her an old woman like in the comics, maybe she would go back to the past through the multiverse or time travel, and more references to the Spider-Verse. She can return to her young form when she travels to the past as she is suffering from the effects of time travel, but she continues with the wisdom of an elderly woman, and when she returns to the future she returns to being elderly.
Make her wear her spider suit and use her spider powers for most of the film, same thing with the other spider girls, make a movie about spider persons, with lot of action scenes, And not a premonition film of a generic paramedic.
I would do also makes she acts as the controllers of time and multiverse like in Loki Time Police, acting all this time as a "guardian angel of all Spider Men" since she sees the future and knows everything that will happen to Peter and all the spider persons and she knows that she has some mystical duty to save they, and in the comics she are like this, she is the reason cause Mark Webb Peter Parker and Sam Raimi Peter Parker dont died in tragic deads, Maybe she is sabotaging some of the villain's clothes, adding an object where it shouldn't be, butterflly effect, cause she was there to save them, even in a invisible way, and ezekiel is playng the the opossite role, tryng to kill spider personas. Make her like a assasins creed of Spider Society working with spider man 2099 and superior spider man tor erase a the non canon events and save spider people who are in risk in the past. With all this time travels and multiversal travels there could even be an appearance by Spider Man 2099 and alot of Spider Personas, a aparitiion of Spider Society. And of course many more references to the Spider-Man universe, such as the construction of Oscorp.
Make the movie be a Live Action Prequel of the animated Spider Verse 3 or a point of start for a live action Spider Verse movie or universe, maybe with morlum in the post credit scenes or some Spider Verse 3 related scenes.
And make the film take place even further back in time, maybe during the Second or first World War ,19th, 18th or 17th century, or perhaps a few years after Christ, because the 80s weren't that long ago and you couldnt only understand it through details and the film didn't give the feeling of the past.
And of course make the film more marketable to the mainstream, maybe call it "Spider Woman", "Spider Girls" or "Spider Women" would atract more ppl
Or even "The First Spider" or "The First Spider-Men" (considering that Madame Web is one of the oldest spider people in existence, or even the first if we not consider medieval spider man, and the film is set in the past. Calling a protagonized girls movie The First Spider Men is ok, since Men means Humans in general) or Just "WEB" since this Includes all versions of spider people that would appear in the film and sound marketeable and at the same time still make Madame Web the main character.
And these factors that I said are just factors about capturing the audience, there are still technical factors that need adjustment, such as bad acting, bad writing, bad CGI, bad editing, bad action scenes, bad visuals, bad scenes.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQOVi_Fo0FOVH7fXZ7m89rPJwk6E-edN_JqdgsACOtDmEYYB_npNc9T1CM&s=10
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTqws796gNzy7fDgMBLPdRyAtdtyH-94cpNyymThpkSvV_QqWhNzMpKGNyt&s=10
https://cdn.marvel.com/content/1x/463mwb_com_mas_mob_01.png
https://cdn.marvel.com/content/1x/julia.jpg
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS0ot1oYqZiabv7FnhmbNw8OnJ3QkRfo7fFGP1Oe14l9QNn5pWP0_mPHA1G&s=10

On May 17th, 2019, hip hop artist Tyler the Creator wrote one of the most critically acclaimed albums of the year, Igor. A follow up to Flower Boy, Tyler the Creator leaned more into neo-soul and funk production to create a concept album with a story. It describes a love triangle between him as Igor, a male love interest, and the male love interest’s girlfriend. Igor catapulted Tyler into mainstream success and led him to reconstruct his past as a shock rapper. Aesthetically, for the rollout he dressed up as the titular character with a suit and a blonde wig, creating a new alter ego for this album. With all the critical acclaim, Igor won the Best Rap Album in the 2020 Grammy Awards. However, this sparked a discourse, especially from Tyler himself, if this album was fitting for the category considering its pop production. We’ll be taking a look at the tracks to refresh our minds about the story that started this iconic rollout.

Tracklist

IGOR’S THEME
The intro to Igor that displays the theme of circles and running. repeatedly. “Running around town, they going to feel this one” and “got my eyes open” are sung repeatedly by Solange and Lil Uzi Vert through synthesizers.
EARFQUAKE
The lead single to Igor features a verse from Playboi Carti and background vocals from Charlie Wilson and Jessy Wilson. It perfectly sets the overall scene of the plot of a codependent relationship, where Igor can’t get enough of his lover.
I THINK
The third track of this album which features background vocals from Solange. This song features the start of the infatuation of Igor and his love interest. However, Igor assures that this is starting to be more than just feelings. We also see another theme with the line “I’m your puppet, you are Jim Henson,” which we’ll later see in puppet. Also, I think (pun intended) this track is a very clear homage to Pharrell’s production style with the four count.
EXACTLY WHAT YOU RUN FROM YOU END UP CHASING
The only interlude in this album, where Jerrod Carmichael talks about the cycles of love. It foreshadows how Tyler will run away from his lover, where in the beginning Igor was chasing him. A huge omen that this romance will not end in a happy ending.
RUNNING OUT OF TIME
This song discusses how Igor feels like that he has not much time with his lover. We see that his lover might not feel the same way. However, Igor is getting more and more infatuated with his lover to where he feels like he’s drowning.”
NEW MAGIC WAND
This song opens up with Jerrod Carmichael, “Sometimes you gotta close a door to open a window.” Closing the door is a reference to how Igor want his lover to end his current relationship so he can spend more time with him. The new magic wand can describe how much Igor wants his lover’s girlfriend to be out of the picture. Possibly, considering murdering her, we can see that Igor’s love has gotten very obsessive.
A BOY IS A GUN\*
Well, if I had two nickels if someone used a sample from “Bound” by the Ponderosa twins… “A BOY IS A GUN*” talks about how Igor’s relationship has turned sour. His lover doesn’t want to return his affections, he invites his ex to breakfast with Igor, Igor realizes that his relationship isn’t living up to his dreams. Igor chants at the end, “Stay the fuck away from me,” arriving full circle with exactly what you run from you end up chasing.
PUPPET
This is where we see the other side of the story, where Igor doesn’t feel he has much autonomy in this relationship. Rather than in the previous tracks, where we see him being controlling over his lover, this time Igor feels like the puppet. We can see that the relationship is definitely not 50/50.
WHAT’S GOOD
“BITCH I’M IGOR!” Tyler the Creator is flexing his production skills to show that Igor really lost it. At this point, he has fully become the villain - Igor.
GONE, GONE/THANK YOU
Tyler’s iconic two song in one in the tenth track is here. And here we see the positive/negative sides of a breakup of a toxic relations. GONE, GONE shows the bittersweetness of a breakup, pretending where everything’s fine but reality everything has gone to shambles. This is especially heard in the passive aggressive lyrics but with a very happy-sounding production. THANK YOU shows the more accepting stage of the breakup but realizing how much Igor is hurt from this experience.
I DON’T LOVE YOU ANYMORE
We see that Igor is hurt over the relationship, but can’t get over the relationship. He tries to tell himself repeatedly that he doesn’t like his crush anymore. However, this shows that he hasn’t matured or grown as he sounds like as angry as a child.
ARE WE STILL FRIENDS?
The outro shows the overall accepting maturity of Igor about the former relationship. He hopes to repair it by making it platonic. There is still a hint of whether or not he still like him, but he knows that he has to move on and close this chapter. This also features a guitar solo from Jack White, wrapping up the theme of love vs. infatuation.

Links

Spotify Apple Music Youtube
Music Videos
EARFQUAKE I THINK A BOY IS A GUN*
Featured in popheads
[FRESH] Thread Pollen Rate

Discussion Questions

1. What’s your favorite song on Igor?
2. What genre would you label Igor in? Do you think Tyler had a point in that Igor isn’t a rap album?
3. Which one of Tyler’s frequent collaborators not featured in Igor would you have like to seen in this project?
4. Do you consider Igor to be his magnum opus? Where would you rank it in Tyler’s discography?

I tend to gravitate towards Psalm 32, Psalm 51, and Romans 8.

https://bgodinspired.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/1715922156.png

Unlocking the Story of King David: A Journey of Faith and Courage

Welcome to an engaging exploration of one of the Bible’s most captivating figures: King David. His story is not just an ancient tale; it’s a remarkable journey of faith, failure, and the grace of God. Whether you’re a seasoned Bible reader or exploring these stories for the first time, there’s something incredibly powerful and relevant in David’s life story for everyone.

From Shepherd to King: The Rise of David

David’s early life as a shepherd boy was marked by simplicity and humility, but even in the pasture, his destiny was being shaped. He was chosen by God to lead Israel, not for his physical prowess, but for his heart. “The LORD does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.” (1 Samuel 16:7) This pivotal moment reveals the true essence of leadership in God’s eyes.

• David’s anointment by Samuel showcased God’s interest in a person’s inner qualities over outward appearances.
• His victory over Goliath demonstrated the power of faith in overcoming life’s giants.
• David’s deep friendship with Jonathan teaches the value of loyal and godly relationships.

Triumphs and Trials: The Life of King David

The narrative of David’s life is a blend of triumphs and trials. As king, David united the tribes of Israel, established Jerusalem as the nation’s capital, and brought the Ark of the Covenant to the city, marking it as a spiritual center. Yet, his life was not without challenges. From his moral failure with Bathsheba to the rebellion of his son Absalom, David’s story is profoundly human and relatable.
Even in his darkest moments, David’s response was to turn back to God with a repentant heart. His psalms express deep anguish, yet always return to a place of trust and worship. “Create in me a pure heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me.” (Psalm 51:10)

Lessons from David’s Life: Applying Biblical Wisdom Today

David’s life is a treasure trove of lessons for the modern believer. His failures remind us of the importance of accountability and the dangers of complacency. His victories show the power of faith and the importance of obedience to God. Through every high and low, David’s story emphasizes the grace, forgiveness, and redemptive power of God.

• In facing giants, remember the victory lies not in strength, but in faith.
• In leadership, prioritize integrity and a heart aligned with God’s will.
• In failure, do not shy away from repentance and seeking God’s mercy.

Embrace the Journey: Discover the Heart of King David

King David’s life offers an incredible perspective on walking with God through every season of life. His story encourages us to pursue a heart like his — one that is fully devoted to God, even in the midst of human imperfection. Let’s take inspiration from David’s faith, courage, and the lessons learned along his journey to deepen our own relationship with God.
Are you ready to explore the depth of your faith and embrace a heart after God’s own? The story of King David invites us to witness the power of divine grace and to cultivate a life that honors God in all circumstances.
Let the legacy of King David inspire you today. Dive into his story, reflect on the lessons, and let your heart be transformed by the richness of God’s Word. Your journey of faith is waiting.
If you want to want to research more Bible Answers on your own, please try our Bible Answers GPT. It’s easy to get lost in the interesting responses you’ll find… every search is like a new treasure hunt 🙂
Source =

(Sorry for my bad English, it's not my mother language)
So I will soon turn 17, currently in senior year and will soon graduate. Little to no friend, lonely as hell and very anxious and shy
These past few years have been really lonely for me, I feel like my teenage years have been wasted. I barely had anyone to spend time with or even talk with aside from my parents, I never had like a genuine silly friend group nor a boyfriend or anything like that like most people of my age and extremely low self-steem. I can't even start a conversation without feeling extremely nervous and scared and when I get to talk to someone I don't even know what to say or how to even be interesting and have a hard time to relating/connecting with people... It makes me feel trash, like if something is wrong with me.
I was bullied around 3rd grade and 6th grade, 6th grade being the worst as I was always left out, everyone had their own group of friends and I tried TRIED talking to my classmates but they just didn't like me I guess...
My dad isn't a bad person, I love him deeply... But he also made me overthink of the things I say. Sometimes when I am talking to someone he would kinda like judge me? He would say stuff like "you're embarrassing me" or "why did you say x thing?" to things that aren't bad? I don't know why he does that but even if it isn't that that often it made me less confident and ask myself every single time if the things I am going to say are ok to even say, even for something like a "hi"
I have been constantly changing schools when I reached high school, I only made one friend who was amazing to me but I ended up changing schools so sadly that friendship didn't last. Last year I was again the one who was always left out, sometimes people talked to me but either it was short-lived or it was about school stuff. At lunch I just sat there and envied my classmates having fun with each other. I decided to join "friend group" because one of the members of that group asked me and wanting to improve myself I accepted, it was alright but I was the extra in that group. they weren't bad people tho... I just happened to have a lot of different tastes compared to them (They talked a lot about anime and artists I didn't really know) which I couldn't relate to them to the most part and neither could they, but at least I am glad they kind of tried. If you can call it that.
I changed schools mid-year after that and I was still very quiet and left out for the rest of the year in my new school, I found it hard talking to my new classmates, feeling frustrated and anxious. I was extremely tired of trying of failing over and over.
And now this year which made me realize my social anxiety is screwing me up. I joined the conservatory in this year as I like music a lot and wish to day dedicate myself to it (I play electric guitar). At the first class of music theory I felt like almost crying just because the teacher was correcting me but I managed to hold my tears because he didn't talk to me that much. But the second time? I embarrassed in front of everyone in the classroom just because my teacher talked to me and corrected me and I cried for the entire class everyone was staring at me and I had to hide under my hoodie. After that day I isolated myself refusing to talk to everyone including my parents and cried almost every night for a week feeling like a failure.
But it gets even worse...
I also have choir and I had a test about two songs, they were simple and easy and I have been practicing for almost a month and when the day came... i went in front of a crowd of 80 people including the teacher and I started to sing, I was extremely anxious and I ended up embarrassing myself AGAIN!!!! INFRONT OF 80 PEOPLE I sounded like a drowning chicken, my entire body was shaking and I felt like I was going to faint anytime soon. So much hard just to get not only a bad grade but embarrass my self in front of a lot of people...
And now today... I had music theory test and well you guessed it, it went horrible... What's worst is that my teacher said to stop having a shaky voice and I just couldn't stop it, everyone staring at me... My teacher scholding me, it went horrible...
I don't have anyone to talk about this hell... Even talk about good thing that happen in my life. I am lonely and I am sick of it.

Hello everyone. I have been lurking on this reddit for a few months and I really want to share my experience with a cult called Shincheonji. I really want to raise awareness of how this cult works and tries to get Catholic believers.
How I got recruited: I started going to mass after a long time being away from the church. I didn't really know where to find fellowship groups for people my age. The parish by my house did not have a young adult Bible study group at the time. I went to confession and poured my heart out. I really prayed to God for help. The next day I met someone in a public area and she was offering Bible study one on one lessons. I really thought this person was someone God guided me to because she told me she was Catholic. Later I found out she was acting like she was Catholic to gain my trust. I did like the lessons she gave me so I agreed to attend the larger Bible study group to learn about parables. There were lessons that I had no problems with but there was many lessons that really rubbed me the wrong way but I continued in the class because my "faith friend" who was assigned to me was encouraging me and love bombing me a lot. Later I realized she was reporting everything I disagreed with in a telegram group chat and any secrets I told her about my life she probably also reported them in the group chat too. They went over the Holy Trinity and called it a mans teaching. Unfortunately I didn't really know how to explain or defend it so I blindly believe them 😞 years later I realized they totally misrepresented it. I continued the course because I liked the fellowship and I was pretty lonely during the pandemic. Unfortunately I didn't see the red flags and I trusted my faith friends a lot.
After the Bible study course: I became a member of the church and worked to bring other people to this place which is supposed to be heaven on earth. They believe everyone needs to be part of the 12 tribes prophesied in Revelation 7 to be saved. For a long time I believed this too. This cult will make fellowship events to invite people to, but these events do not show the real name of the church. But I had big doubts! The leader called COVID 19 pandemic the great tribulation but this "great tribulation" was not supposed to happen until the 144,000 are sealed. To this day the 144,000 are not named. The leader MHL claims to have seen and heard all the events of Revelation but he was wrong about this prophecy.
Waking up: After I realized that the leader is a false prophet, I had a strong desire to learn the truth. One of the Bible verses I read that really helped me was Matthew 28:19. I thought to myself maybe there really is good reason to believe in the Holy Trinity. I was pretty happy to go back to mass. I felt awkward at first but i felt a sense of relief that I don't have to serve a false prophet anymore.
Today I can't wait to go through confirmation classes. I am doing my best to spread awareness because I don't want anyone else to go through what I went through. Also it can happen to anyone! During my time in shincheonji, I saw a lot of young adults, middle aged people, and even elderly people. So if someone offers you a Bible study but won't tell you what church it belongs to this is a red flag that it is a cult. If someone approaches you asking for help with a survey that includes faith questions, don't give them your phone number! Lastly if a Catholic you don't know offers you a Bible study, make sure you can verify what parish the Bible study belongs to. Shincheonji will have bible study lessons on Zoom but they will also use conference rooms.
God bless you all 🙏

Parterre Property Services Inc. was mainly formed by partners who recognized a very real need to bring a breath of fresh air to the Alberta condominium management marketplace. Bringing with them 75 years of combined property management experience and the partners at Parterre Property Services help their clients navigates property management Alberta thru legal & regulatory considerations.
The Alberta Law of Property Act governs property-related problems in Alberta. These rules have changed over time to incorporate a variety of contemporary ownership and usage rights. The Law of Property Act in Alberta is well-versed in by the staff of Parterre Property.
Property law is complex and affects many aspects of property ownership, transactions, and rights. Parterre Property professionals, with their broad legal knowledge, help individuals, companies, and legal entities navigate this complex legal landscape. The Alberta Law of Property Act is a fundamental component of the province's legal framework. Property owners in Alberta rely on Parterre Property to handle specific areas of property ownership, such as the Condominium Property Act, with discernment.
Essentially, property management Alberta provides a complex, although methodical, road map for individuals involved in real estate transactions. It describes the procedures needed to transfer ownership of real estate, execute leases, and complete mortgage transactions. The property act's ability to adapt to Alberta's changing circumstances is demonstrated by the modern concerns it incorporates, which mirror the changing nature of property transactions.
Parterre Property experts understand the significance of clearly defined property management and go beyond the simple mechanics of transactions to explore the subtleties of legal and equitable interests.
Parterre Property Services Inc. should be consulted before investing in real estate in Alberta since they can assist in navigating the state's complicated commercial property rules. Property owners, investors, and managers may find it difficult to handle property-related issues on their own. Owning and leasing commercial properties in Alberta involves a number of legal considerations, thus Parterre Property Inc.'s experience and understanding are crucial to ensuring compliance and safeguarding your interests.
Every property in Alberta is an investment, and Parterre Property Services Inc. understands how crucial it is to maintain and raise the value of each one. Comprehensive resources for property owners looking for proactive and professional property management services in Alberta may be found on the company's website, https://parterreproperty.ca/. You can learn a lot about Parterre Property Services Inc.'s strategy, value-added services, and actual success stories by browsing the website.
Partners saw a very real need to infuse new energy into the Alberta condominium management industry and founded Parterre Property Services Inc. The partners are the foundation of the organization's intellectual capital, contributing over 75 years of combined experience in property management and business acumen.

Tier List: https://imgur.com/a/RjE3PTc
There's something special about this battle from the very beginning, with how the announcer is doing these hushed whispers with this ominous music playing.
"Look alive, crème de la Kremlin's arriving! Try to serve Ivan; no surviving!" Ivan saying "look alive" as we get a close-up shot of his face is an attention-grabbing opener. The wordsmithing here with crème de la Kremlin and serve Ivan/surviving is magical. The background looks gorgeous too, great use of colors. "You're a land rover; I'm a land expander! Here to hand you your first loss, Alexander!" Well this is simultaneously a top-tier boast and diss; Alexander's empire fell apart when he died while Ivan's conquerings remained a part of Russia, so he's already making a strong case for being better at the thing Alexander's famous for. "I'll school you like Aristotle; smack you harder than you hit that bottle!" This is fine. A reference to the fact that Aristotle taught Alexander and a diss against Alexander for being a drunk. These aren't particularly powerful lines, but they're functional. I do love the way Ivan's eyes wander to the rhythm when he says 'hit that bottle'. "You're nothing but an overrated lush; I'll crush ya! I'm the first Tsar of all of Russia!" Interesting tidbit that does make Ivan the Terrible seem like a much more significant historical figure than he otherwise would have if you didn't know that. Getting all the guys from the Russian battle in the background is a fun touch, even if the dancer dude does not feel like he remotely belongs up there with the rest of those guys. "You're an asshole with an anastole! I'm heaven-sent, divine and holy!" The first line is quite mediocre, and the second line is mostly just serving to build up to the next line. "So don't even try to approach the God, or you'll get a huge sack like Novgorod!" God fucking damn, this is easily in my top ten closing lines. Not only is it a clever line and a gloriously epic boast, but the line delivery. His voice is so low and monstrous-sounding, especially with how they seem to have layered extra copies of the line recording on top of it. And the visual with all the Ivans on-screen, and the versions on the right and left turning to the camera join the one in the center in delivering this wham line... UNF. I love this!
"Hey fella, swell diss." Gotta cut in early here to acknowledge how funny and iconic this reaction is. "But now you got the Panhellenist from Pella hella pissed." This line speaks for itself, it's got some of the best wordplay ERB has ever crafted. "Stepping up's foolish as well as useless, little Vasilyevich! Let me spell out the list!" Pretty cool wordsmithing here, nice setup to something bigger though I don't think what follows quite lives up. "I brought foes to their knees in Phonecia! Breezed through Gaza to Giza! Had the Balkans, Persia, Syria, Iraq, and Pakistan in my expansion pack!" This comes pretty close to just being a straightforward history lesson, there's not a ton of cleverness here. The expansion pack joke is a little corny. There's a little bit of wordplay going on with bits like knees/Phonecia and Gaza/Giza. Flow's weaker than in the rest of his verse too. The visual with the map is a nice touch. "While you died in the middle of a game of chess; you got vodka bars: flavorless!" Some competent disses here. I really like the visual of the chess board: he even knocks over a King, which is presumably supposed to represent him defeating Ivan. I think the way Alexander paints Ivan as a disconnected figure who's just playing games whilst Alexander is actually out conquering in-person is a nice way to preserve his credibility after that land expander bit from Ivan. "And what I'm about to spit will be the craziest, so go fix me a drink so I can stay refreshed!" Nothing too great here, although I do like the dismissiveness inherent in Alexander ordering Ivan to make him a drink. "Kudos! Greek for the glory I got from winning every single war that I fought." Nothing much to say, this is a good boast, it checks out. "So this will be straightforward: I'll take up this sword that I brought, and slice you in half like the Gordian knot." This isn't the most substantive way of saying he's better than Ivan, but referencing the Gordian knot legend is something. "And I'll soar to the top, like the eagle whose feather I would sport in the helmet I wore, as I swatted my many enemies; shattered them like a porcelain pot, and they'd be praying for the torture to stop!" Okay, now Alexander is just witlessly rambling. This is easily the low point of his verse. "But I would leave 'em contorted and they'd be screaming and roaring until their vocal cords were torn up and shot!" Again, he's just rambling, but I will say that his flow and line delivery starts being so awesome here that I can give it a pass. I also like how the way the music stopped after he yelled "stop!" last line before dropping into this one. "And I would holler "Bucephalus!", hop on my horsey, and trot! I win, Ivan; I vanquish! I'm an immortal; you're not!" He's still mostly just rambling about how great he is without being clever about it, but again, he sounds so awesome here that it works. And the Ivan/I vanquish is good wordplay and a nice parallel to the serve Ivan/surviving bit, so it does have that much going for it in terms of substance. Also the visuals cutting back to Ivan pouring a drink in the creepiest possible manner are fan-fucking-tastic.
Ivan concedes defeat, having actually prepared Alexander a drink. You'd think a little interim bit like this would hurt the battle in repeat viewings/listens, but I enjoy it every time. Zach Sherwin's line delivery of "I WEEP, it's all so EEEEAAAASY!!!" is hilarious. Love the way Ivan comes poking out of the shadows all rat-like as he asks what's wrong. I also dig the way Alexander's facial expression changes when he says 'queasy' and he falls down and his head moving out of the shot gives way to Ivan standing behind him celebrating and it's just so GOOD. This battle is so much fun! The "HA!!! You've been poisoned!" is fun, as is Zach Sherwin's deliberately bad acting with his final words. Ivan declares that he is Terrible and that there's no Great who could defeat this Russian, but a mysterious shadow materializes and quietly suggests a flute-busting Prussian might manage it.
What the FUCK. The flute solo! The chanting of "Old Fritz!" The bird's eye camera angle that Lloid looks up at as the emblem of what is probably his house or country or some other organization related to him is on the floor! That dapper-ass outfit! The little pose he strikes as his title card appears! This is without a doubt the greatest entrance any contestant has ever had in ERB to this day. This new music track kicks ass too. "Out the gate, first servant of state! Oblique attack tactics, ain't exactly straight!" As if he wasn't cool enough already, the king is a queen! Good use of consonance too. Also apparently this is referencing a famous tactic for battle that Frederick used. I looked up 'first servant of state prussia' and was informed that Frederick pursued a policy of religious tolerance and abolished torture immediately when he came to power. What an absolute chad. I wish he brought that up here; at best he vaguely alludes to it. "I've got creative talents and battle malice; hard as steel on the field, genteel in the palace!" These lines aren't substantive, but the line delivery is a ton of fun. And the visuals with him jabbing his cane and sipping from a cup are immaculate. "Russia's fucked up but no wonder why; with your tundras and taigas and bears oh my!" Great flow, the visuals are absolutely top tier. The line itself is competent, definitely getting carried by the presentation, but the tigers/taigas swapout is good. "I would pay a guy to tear out my eyes if I had to look at your troll face every night!" Man... why can't mediocre lines in all of the battles get such good line deliveries? Lloid is selling the absolute fuck out of this weaksauce diss and making it work. "Now, bring me my chair! I'm weary from tearing you a new derrière from here to Red Square!" Wait a minute, is that... chair... wear... tear... derrière... square... IT IS!!! IT'S A 5X RHYME COMBO!!! "Fought a Seven Years' War, I ain't scared of a Tsar! 'Cause beating you only took me twelve bars!" A truly fabulous boast and iconic verse closer.
These interims continue the trend of being hilarious by having Frederick die in his chair without the need for Ivan's intervention, which is a reference to how he actually died! Fancy that. I do think this one doesn't quite stand up to repeat encounters the way the first intermission did; the line about saving money and the little song Ivan sings are a bit drab to sit through again and again, but hey, they were funny the first time and it's still a fun performance from Peter. Pompey comes in to seemingly start rapping, but immediately gets decapitated by Catherine the Great. Poor guy. I would have liked for this to be a five-way battle and to have gotten a verse from Pompey first, but ah well.
"Macedonians, Prussians, and Romans; those aren't worthy opponents. It takes a Russian to take down a Russian. I'm Cat; I'm a cat; you're a rodent!" This is a pretty good opener, except for the fact that she's singing. Introducing singing into these rap battles is always a serious momentum-killer. She's got a great costume, though. "How are you the head of our state when the state of your head was such a crazy one? Such sick shit going through your brain that you stuck a spike through your own son!" Good wordplay in that first line, great visuals with these dancers up to chicanery in the background. "You're unbalanced like I unbalanced the European powers with the wars I waged! I brought the Russian empire straight out the olden days and right into the golden age!" That first line feels a little forced, competent boast in the second line. "I'm the boss bitch that you just can't meddle with! This whole battle's like Alaska 'cause I settled it!" Nice closer.
Ivan briefly interjects as he tries and fails to seduce Catherine with a horse. Peter continues giving the best performance of his career, though I can't help but wish we got a little more here. Feels weird that this is the last we see Ivan onscreen. Would've been nice to at least see an upset reaction to his ploy failing.
Catherine proceeds to inform Ivan that this rumor about her sexual proclivities is false: "That horse story is a pile of shit, though I do keep 'em chomping at the bit." There's three different layers to 'chomping at the bit' going on here, and that's cool. "But you're never gonna get it, nyet! Couldn't spin in my chamber of this were Russian roulette." This is pretty funny, and I think it's for sure her best line. The little interjection of 'nyet' is great. "I'm picking up where Peter the Great left off! Bringing sexy back to House Romanov!" Not much to say here. Kind of filler. "So don't call me Queen, I'm far more great! Empress to Tsar 8, bitch! Checkmate!" This is literally a killer closing line; she's referencing how Ivan died in the middle of a game of chess, as Alexander said, and years later I'm only just getting that now.
So all of these verses have considerable flaws, I think. Ivan's is too short, for as much screentime as he gets he doesn't get much in terms of actual rapping. We could have at least used a few more lines in his first verse. There's a lot of Alexander the Great's verse that is just him droning on about how great he is without actually having much substance or cleverness to what he's saying. It's his godlike FLOW that is carrying him through a lot of this. And that's a legitimate factor to consider in his performance and it does make his verse great to listen to, but I wish there were more meat there underneath Sherwin's kickass performance. Frederick the Great is the most entertaining part of the battle(saying a LOT when Ivan the Terrible is present) and his lines are probably the most consistently good, but none of them are great, y'know? He could have used a killer burn or two in there, his diss game wasn't great. And Catherine the Great... well, she sang for both of her verses. I hate it when rappers sing, it kills the energy, and when going back to listen to this battle(which is very often!) I usually stop once her verse starts. She's got some good lines, they're decent verses on paper, and her actress is obviously a good singer, but I just do not want to listen to a solid minute of someone singing in a rap battle.
And really, having so much of this battle be skippable to me is reason enough to justify putting it in A Tier rather than S. I certainly intended to put it in A Tier for a long time. But... even if I feel Catherine's verse ends up being a drag, and even if the verses that come before have some flaws that might keep them from being S Tier on their own... it's all just so fun. Peter and Lloid and Zach are all at their best, and I genuinely do think Ivan is the best character Peter ever played. I love the performances, and the visuals, and the music(mostly), and the structure of having all these Greats dying off to the Terrible. This has got to be in the top five rap battles in terms of which ones I go back to the most; probably exactly number five. And if that isn't worthy of S Tier, then there's only gonna be four S Tiers on this list, and that seems like too few. Bottom of S Tier.
Ivan = Frederick>Alexander>Catherine. Maybe a little controversial, but I do think that you could make a valid and substantive case for any one of these rappers being the winner.